some bond of social unity of the great problem before humanity in its historical development. To attain individuality as opposed to individualsm, to attain social unity as opposed to uniformity in politics, in industry, and in the Church, constitutes the social problem. A false universal and a false particular ought to be avoided; the universal is to be found through the particular, and the particular in the universal. Freedom and unity, these are the two great facts which men will be tempted to overlook in the future as they have overlooked them in the great revolutions of Church and of state in the past. We are revolting from two centuries of individualism, and our tendency is to swing towards some extreme form of socialism. But we shall avoid the evils of a false socialism by keeping clearly in mind the two great fundamental truths of human life and history— individual freedom and social unity.

At the bottom missionary work is a social problem of world-wide extent. It represents the incarnation of the truth, "We being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." (Romans xii:5). If each one, however, were intent only on his personal ends, his personal salvation, the modern missionary movement would have but little support. The true social meaning of Christianity and the true social function of the Church find embodiment in her missionary work as well as in the work at our doors. The problem is a world problem, no less. There is no place where we can draw the line. The Kingdom of our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ "must take in all humanity, and the whole life of humanity, if it is to be His Kingdom."

Having considered the outlines of the social problem, we may next consider the Church's attitude, in general, toward social problems.

BY MARLINSPIKE

HRISTENDOM is frequently charged with being so involved in internal squabbles as to lose sight of its goal

and of its principles. More particularly is this charge brought against the Anglican Communion, whose almost blatant variety of belief and opinion furnishes a source of irritation or despair to its adherents, and a source of wonder or derision to those outside its amazingly elastic fold. Even in that part of our Communion which realizes and upholds its Catholic heritage there are divergences so great as to make some churchmen doubt the validity of our claims to Catholicity, and to bewilder the convert seeking the repose and assurance which he thinks the Catholic Church should offer. In that great part of the American Church which is essentially Catholic, the differences are more striking than vital. Parishes which rejoice in holy water stoups and Benediction look askance on parishes where they have only vestments and confessionals. And so on down the line. It is an unfortunate fact, however, that there is but little charity to bridge over these discrepancies of observance and ceremonial, and this destroys that cooperation which must be welded before the missionary work which is so necessary within our own borders can be effected.

In considering how modernism and the modern form of opportunism influence doctrinal teaching in our Communion, two classes of Churchmanship may be dismissed summarily. One is the genuine Low Churchman-the socalled "Evangelical"-who is unafraid to teach that the Holy Communion is but a memorial, that the clergy are but

ministers and no different from laymen except by courtesy -anti-sacramental and anti-sacerdotal principles. With the honest teaching of such doctrines, (purely protestant in every way) it is not our purpose to deal here.

The second class which we may exempt is that in which the Catholic faith is taught and practiced in essentials, without fear or favour.

There is, however, a class of parishes,-unhappily a very large class, for some phenomenal reason known as "sound" parishes,-in which the people are kept in a twilight of vagueness as to just what they do believe. The rector very frequently believes in the essential articles of faith himself, but for reasons of policy (a more plain-spoken age would call it cowardice) neglects to teach it to his people. Unquestionably the greatest evil among the laity of our Church is ignorance,-ignorance of the Church and her sacraments, ignorance of the most elementary points in religious education. With slight allowances for the apathy of people towards religious subjects in general, this ignorance is due entirely to the clergy. They (and remember that two classes have been eliminated) have neglected to teach positively that certain things are absolutely necessary, because it is easier to be vague, and include all sorts of people on a platform so broad as to be meaningless. Take as a type a big, active suburban parish: the rector believes entirely in the Real Presence, yet the people are not taught it,—are not taught to make their communions fasting, because it is easier to be vague, to build up a reverent spirit without anybody being sure as to just exactly what they are being reverent about. I have chosen the doctrine of the Real Presence as an example because the issue is so clear-cut,either it is the Body and Blood of our Lord, or it is not. But

many other doctrines would serve; they are not taught and in spite of the fact that the rector believes in them. Here, then, is something which a priest believes as an essential but which he refuses to teach because it means raising an issue; because it means, possibly, a fight; because it involves a change in parish customs; because it might alienate certain people. Weighty considerations, aren't they, if one believes a spiritual fact vital and necessary for salvation?

There has never been a time before this when the practice of religion was made out to be easy in order to entice people to accept it. The Catholic Church exacts duties which are not precisely jovial in their nature; the Puritans never held out a predigested religion as an inducement to the worldly-minded; Wesley was far from advertising free refreshments to get people to follow him. But our age has adopted the view that religion must be made easy for the people; the necessity of the soul's union with God is not considered a sufficient reason to place before them. In the American Church especially is there room for this preposterously weedy idea to grow, because our clergy are the heirs of a national failing,-our tendency to think that each man is as good as every other man in any field of endeavor. It is this habit of mind which leads us to believe that because a man can make cheap automobiles he has the common-sense usually granted to a lawyer's clerk: that because a baseball player gets several times the salary of a college president, he is an authority on men's neckwear, or divorce laws, or any other subject. This line of reasoning is more than inconsequent and fallacious; it is dangerous. When applied to the Church it gives priests with quite ordinary capacities for performing their parochial duties the notion

that they are heaven-sent messengers on political topics. It gives men who have made a success of law the self-important view that they know more about the Atonement than the rector does,-and each encourages the other in his excursions from his proper sphere. If a stiff-necked, middleaged man, who is an autocrat in his own office, doesn't like the idea of confession, our rector lets the issue hang in the air and perhaps praises the good man for the "sincere thought" shown in his views on such subjects, because it is easier to temporize than to lay down as absolute certain facts in the face of the world's dogmatic repudiation of all dogma. The parishioner who announces his disbelief in, say, the Real Presence, or in absolution, not only is not told that here are certain facts which he can take or leave (it wont affect the facts)-but he is liable to be praised for thinking enough about such things even to deny them. Shakespeare, ever an untrustworthy chronicler, fails to transmit for our benefit the words of comfort with which the Abbot of Leicester soothed the world-sick Wolsey. No doubt that kindly man made much of Wolsey's services to the state, of his past pleasures and glories, and glossed over the years of apostasy and evil living and neglect of his priestly functions. Unquestionably he made no mention of that end which, from sickness or from the axe, faced the wretched prelate. Can you imagine vagueness and euphemism and meaningless kindliness at such a juncture? Life had not been easy for the great cardinal; he had fought for his honors by intrigue and by every despicable means; "had ventured," he says, "like little wanton boys that swim on bladders, this many summers in a sea of glory but far beyond my depth." The bubble was pricked, the richness of honors swept away and in the face of death isn't it credi